All "Stand Your Ground" laws state is that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be. Even if Zimmerman was armed and following Martin there is no evidence (YET) that he initiated any sort of use of force. The narrative is that Zimmerman only drew/shot as his head was being bashed into the pavement. Granted thats HIS story...but it's the story that has so far kept him from being arrested.

Even if Zimmerman grabbed Martin in some sort of misguided "citizens arrest" scenario...Zimmerman would still be justified in using deadly force if he was faced with deadly force. People seem to be under the impression that Zimmerman would somehow have deserved getting his head bashed/killed in for following Martin and any use of force he used would have been unlawful simply because he was playing neighborhood watch commander....again ASSUMING that his story of being attacked by Martin is indeed true.

I would tend to agree with you, but then I think: would it be unreasonable to conclude that Martin wouldn't have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman wasn't following him? I mean, it's not like he was following the kid around a crowded mall - it was dark, raining, presumably nobody else around... my fight or flight would be in overdrive if I was in Martin's position.

On the other hand, Martin was nearly to his destination - why didn't he just sprint home yelling "help, a man's chasing me?" Also, Martin had a cellphone - why didn't he call 911?

I would tend to agree with you, but then I think: would it be unreasonable to conclude that Martin wouldn't have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman wasn't following him? I mean, it's not like he was following the kid around a crowded mall - it was dark, raining, presumably nobody else around... my fight or flight would be in overdrive if I was in Martin's position.

On the other hand, Martin was nearly to his destination - why didn't he just sprint home yelling "help, a man's chasing me?" Also, Martin had a cellphone - why didn't he call 911?

OK, I may be sliding to the Zimmerman side...

He's 17 and that will answer most of your questions. We caught a dude peeping on our teen friend, ran, came back and never once thought about pedophillia, rape, ramifications or calling the cops.

You are Superman when you are 13-23 approx. until you encounter a death or something similar. I'm not even addressing looking like a badass to your girl.

I would tend to agree with you, but then I think: would it be unreasonable to conclude that Martin wouldn't have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman wasn't following him? I mean, it's not like he was following the kid around a crowded mall - it was dark, raining, presumably nobody else around... my fight or flight would be in overdrive if I was in Martin's position.

On the other hand, Martin was nearly to his destination - why didn't he just sprint home yelling "help, a man's chasing me?" Also, Martin had a cellphone - why didn't he call 911?

OK, I may be sliding to the Zimmerman side...

It all depends on what Martin and Zimmerman REALLY did. Being followed in and of iteslf is not cause to use deadly force minus some other factor.

You open the "you cant defend yourself because you started it" can and some ugly things can come out.

You open the "you cant defend yourself because you started it" can and some ugly things can come out.

That potential is certainly there, but an intelligent judiciary can mitigate the risk. Virginia's self-defense statutes have a provision about initiating hostilities, but case law has made clear that it's not an automatic disqualification of self-defense rights. Having said that, of course, no law should place undue burden on the judiciary to interpret bad writing.

The usual disclaimer: I'm not pretending this has anything to do with Florida law.

So if my girlfriend is screaming at me and driving erratically, does the increased possibility of my being killed constitute deadly force? Careful how you answer...

Sent via Blackberry from T-Mobile ~via BB (wap.pinstack.com)~

"The plain meaning of physical force is power, violence, or pressure directed against a person consisting in a physical act. A person cannot make physical contact — particularly of an insulting or provoking nature — with another without exerting some level of physical force."

With that definition in place I throw the question back at you....

What you are describing is a "reckless act", not a "use of force" against your person.

"The plain meaning of physical force is power, violence, or pressure directed against a person consisting in a physical act. A person cannot make physical contact — particularly of an insulting or provoking nature — with another without exerting some level of physical force."

With that definition in place I throw the question back at you....

What you are describing is a "reckless act", not a "use of force" against your person.

So you're not recommending an armed response to this situation?

Sent via Blackberry from T-Mobile ~via BB (wap.pinstack.com)~

Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie

So if my girlfriend is screaming at me and driving erratically, does the increased possibility of my being killed constitute deadly force? Careful how you answer...

Sent via Blackberry from T-Mobile ~via BB (wap.pinstack.com)~

But in this theoretical scenario the following law would apply:

S 35.05 Justification; generally.Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article
defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would
otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
1. Such conduct is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree, or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of his official powers, duties or functions; or
2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. The necessity and justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. Whenever evidence relating to the defense of justification under this subdivision is offered by the defendant, the court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a defense.

So in theory this would all depend on the totality of the circumstances..is the GF intentionally driving recklessly? Is she saying something like "Im going to kill the both of us"? Is she refusing to stop/slow down/calm down?